Tax Weekly Round-Up: February 10 - February 16, 2025

NEW INCOME TAX BILLNew Income Tax Bill 2025: Concept Of "Tax Year" To Be Introduced Instead Of "Assessment Year", "Financial Year" To Remain UnchangedThe new Income Tax bill is set to introduce the concept of 'Tax Year'. This will replace the current concept of assessment year (or previous year) from the Income Tax Act.Persons engaged in digital content creation, including social media influencers and online platforms, shall be required to register for Goods and Services Tax (GST) if their turnover exceeds Rs 20 lakh in a financial year (Rs 10 lakh for special category states).SUPREME COURT'Every Statute Prima Facie Prospective Unless Stated Otherwise' : Supreme Court Says 2002 Amendment To CST Act Won't Affect Accrued RightsCase Name: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. V. PRISM CEMENT LIMITED & ANR.Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.13928 OF 2015The Supreme Court yesterday (on February 12) held that though after the amendment of Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the State Government's right to grant exemption from tax has ceased to exist, the amendment is prospective. Thus, it would not apply to the cases where an absolute exemption has already been granted. The amended Act nowhere stipulates that rights previously accrued stand nullified or all previous exemptions stand cancelled or revoked., the Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal said.Income Tax Act | No Penalty Under S.271AAA If Undisclosed Income Is Admitted, Explained & Tax Paid Even With Delay : Supreme CourtCase Name: K KRISHNAMURTHY VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2411 OF 2025The Supreme Court, while determining a tax matter, observed that the undisclosed income, under Section 271AAA(1) of the Income Tax Act, surrendered by the assessee during the search, is not sufficient to levy the penalty.HIGH COURTSAndhra Pradesh HCShort Tax | Timeline For Issuing Show Cause Notice U/S 73(2) Is Mandatory, Not Discretionary: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase title: M/s. The Cotton Corporation Of India v. Assistant Commissioner St Auditfac and OthersCase no.: WRIT PETITION NO: 1463/2025The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the time permit set out under 73(2) of the AP GST Act for issuance of show cause notice in relation to alleged short payment of tax, etc. is mandatory in nature.A division bench of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Harinath N. added that any violation of that time period cannot be condoned and would render the show cause notice otiose.Andhra Pradesh VAT Act | Pleadings On Suppression Of Material Facts, Wilful Evasion Of Tax Are Sine Qua Non For Invoking S.21(5): High CourtCase title: Chakkas Enterprises vs. The Chief Commissioner Of State Taxes and OthersCase no.: W.P.NO: 30501/2023 & W.P.No. 16819/2024The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that pleadings relating to suppression of material facts, in an assessment order are the sine qua non for invoking section 21(5); by way of which limitation for filing an assessment order is extended to 6 years from 4 years."There is nowhere any mention of suppression of facts, much less, wilful suppression of facts, resulting in wilful evasion of tax, which is the sine qua non, for invoking Section 21(5) of the Act. In such circumstances, the provisions of Section 21(5) of the Act would not be applicable and the period of limitation would be four years, as set out under Section 21(4) of the Act," held Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Harinath N.GST Registration Cannot Be Refused Merely Because Assessee Belongs To Another State: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title: Tirumala Balaji Marbles And Granites v. The Assistant Commissioner St and OthersCase Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 1200/2025The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that GST registration can't be refused merely because the assessee belongs to another State. “Though the apprehension of the respondents may not be misplaced, it would not mean that registration can be refused on a ground, which is not available under the Statute or the Rules. There do not appear to be any restriction for persons outside the State to come into the State of Andhra Pradesh and seek registration under the APGST Act,” stated the Division Bench of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Harinath N.Calcutta HCAO Duty Bound To Dispose Of Assessee's Written Objections To Proposed Re-Assessment By Passing Speaking Order: Calcutta High CourtCase title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 13 Kolkata Vs Champalal OmprakashCase no.: ITAT/5/2025The Calcutta High Court recently upheld an ITAT order deleting the addition of over ₹4 crore made to the income of an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 in reassessment action.A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Bivas Pattanayak held that the Assessing Officer had erred in not disposing of the written objection submitted by the assessee against the reopening of the assessment.Delhi HCImposition Of Conditions By Customs For Provisional Release Of Seized Goods...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: February 10 - February 16, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags